Skip to main content
Glama

agentic_coordinator_decompose

Break down GitHub development tasks into structured workflows by analyzing issues, decomposing requirements, and selecting appropriate agents for automated code generation and review processes.

Instructions

CoordinatorAgent実行 - タスク分解(DAG構築)・Agent選定

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
descriptionYesタスク詳細
issue_numberYesGitHub Issue番号
titleYesタスクタイトル

Implementation Reference

  • Handler function that triggers GitHub Actions workflow for CoordinatorAgent to decompose tasks (agentic_coordinator_decompose tool execution).
      private async handleCoordinatorDecompose(args: {
        issue_number: number;
        title: string;
        description: string;
      }) {
        try {
          await execAsync(
            `gh workflow run agentic-system.yml -f agent=coordinator -f issue_number=${args.issue_number}`,
            { cwd: process.env.GITHUB_REPOSITORY_PATH || process.cwd() }
          );
    
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: 'text',
                text: `## 🎯 CoordinatorAgent起動
    
    **Issue**: #${args.issue_number}
    **Title**: ${args.title}
    
    ✅ タスク分解ワークフローを起動しました
    
    分解されたサブタスクは Issue #${args.issue_number} のコメントで確認できます`
              }
            ]
          };
        } catch (error) {
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: 'text',
                text: `❌ エラー: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : 'Unknown error'}`
              }
            ]
          };
        }
      }
  • Input schema definition for agentic_coordinator_decompose tool.
    inputSchema: {
      type: 'object',
      properties: {
        issue_number: {
          type: 'number',
          description: 'GitHub Issue番号'
        },
        title: {
          type: 'string',
          description: 'タスクタイトル'
        },
        description: {
          type: 'string',
          description: 'タスク詳細'
        }
      },
      required: ['issue_number', 'title', 'description']
    }
  • server.ts:126-147 (registration)
    Tool registration in TOOLS array including name, description, and schema.
    {
      name: 'agentic_coordinator_decompose',
      description: 'CoordinatorAgent実行 - タスク分解(DAG構築)・Agent選定',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          issue_number: {
            type: 'number',
            description: 'GitHub Issue番号'
          },
          title: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'タスクタイトル'
          },
          description: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'タスク詳細'
          }
        },
        required: ['issue_number', 'title', 'description']
      }
    },
  • server.ts:238-240 (registration)
    Switch case registration mapping tool name to handler in CallToolRequestSchema handler.
    case 'agentic_coordinator_decompose':
      return await this.handleCoordinatorDecompose(args as any);
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'task decomposition (DAG construction) and agent selection', which suggests a planning/coordination operation, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether it modifies data, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise (one short phrase) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be more structured by separating concepts (e.g., 'Decomposes tasks into a DAG and selects agents for execution by CoordinatorAgent'). The mixed language (Japanese/English) slightly reduces clarity but doesn't add unnecessary length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity implied by 'DAG construction' and 'agent selection', along with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a plan, agent assignments), how errors are handled, or dependencies on other tools. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (description, issue_number, title) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool performs 'task decomposition (DAG construction) and agent selection' for a 'CoordinatorAgent', which provides a general purpose. However, it's somewhat vague about what specific resources are involved (e.g., GitHub issues, code tasks) and doesn't clearly distinguish from siblings like 'agentic_issue_analyze' or 'agentic_codegen_execute'. The Japanese/English mix adds minor ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies it's for task decomposition, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, timing, or exclusions relative to siblings like 'agentic_issue_analyze' (which might analyze issues) or 'agentic_codegen_execute' (which might execute code). Usage is only loosely implied by the tool's name and description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ShunsukeHayashi/agentic-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server